-compares the film to others with similar material.
-notes things that worked and things that don’t.
-gives brief plot without giving away whole story.
I read the reveiw by Geoff Andrew from Time Out.
Three features of this reveiw are:
1. Names the actors and what their characters are like.
2. Doesn’t give away the plot and ending.
3. Gives facts on what happened to the Jews in the movie and in real life.
Three features I noticed in the first review are, That they didnt give the story away but they gave away just enough that you would want to see the film. It notes how Schindlers List is different to other films Steven Spielberg has directed like Jaws. At the end of the review there is a star rating which giveS you a ood idea of how good the film is.
The Review Also Mentions The History Of The Director And States Their Previous Work For Comparison, It Also States How Well The Actor Preformed And Suited The Role.
This Review Also Notes The Seriousness Of The Content And How This Film Is Unique To Other Hollywood Films On The Holocaust.
Three Features.
Three features that i noticed in the review were that he described and explained the main characters and hat their roles were in the film and comparing them to the real life NAZIs that were there. Also a detailed plot summary was told, although it did tell a bit too much detail about the use of colour especially about the little girl who wears the red coat in the movie. They also have there own personal opinion to the movie which is different from others as he states the good and bad points of the movie.
I read the review by Rita Kempley from the Washington Post
Three features:
– I thought she gave away a tiny bit too much when reviewing the film.
– Notes the epiphany in the movie, girl in scarlet coat
– Gives detailed thoughts on the characters and their personalities
Three features that were noticed by me were that they didn’t give the plot away at all and it gives you just enough information to know what it is about but makes you want to see more. Another feature is the reference to the director Steven Speilberg and his background. This shows the style of the movie and relations to his other movies. Another feature is the reaction to the movie by viewers and it gives you an idea of what the public thinks.
– He explained the scene where the jewish hinge-maker was meant to be shot but the gun kept misfiring and explained way to much of the story. He gave the plot away. If somebody hadn’t seen the film they would know what happens in all the key points after reading this review.
– He compared Schindler’s list to other films that Steven Spielberg made which was kind of irrelevant because it was more like reviewing the work that the director had done rather than reviewing the actual film.
– He links the conclusion in with the review and makes a very strong closing point.
I read the review by Todd McCarthy.I noticed lots of writing features including that they give you lots of hints about the story line, enough to get you interested but not enough to give away the ending. Another feature they use is high end vocabulary such as “but Spielberg makes this both memorable and somehow bearable by staging it all with abrupt, shocking suddenness, which adds to the feeling of arbitrariness.” Which doesnt make much sense if you read it quickly. Another feature is that they list things a lot e.g.”easily elicit automatic reactions of moral outrage, personal horror, religious self-righteousness and dramatic extremes, not to mention severe depression.”
Channel 4 review.
– ‘Twas really short but good as they didn’t give anything about the plot away. Just a brief sentence or two saying what the film is about. Makes you want to see it.
-Use lots of adjectives and good language.
-Named director and actors and characters. Compared ‘Schindlers List’ to ‘Jurassic park’ and said it was better.
Review of the Schindlers List review by Emanuel Levy
Emanuel gives a brief plot summary and in my opinion gives away too much of the story although he does say things that I hadn’t noticed. e.g that the Enamelware factory was originally owned by Jews.
Emanuel compares the film with others that have similar content or are of the same genre to indicate to readers what the film is about.
Emanuel comments on parts of the film that he thinks that worked and parts that he thought were unnecessary but can understand why they were included (in the film)
I wrote a SUPER good one in class but the computer committed suicide. Because im traumatised i cannot be expected to write such a good one the second time round.
Time Out review:
The actors and their suitability are discussed, as are their performance, so that we get an idea of who plays who. This could possible create interest in the possible if you recognise an actor that you enjoy watching.
The reviewer says that it “Is Spielbergs finest since Jaws” which I think is completely wrong and gives people the total opposite idea of what he is trying to communicate in this film when compared with Jaws.
Also talked about is the camera work and editing, how it is in black and white and the way in which this works to the advantage of the film.
The words were really big. Talk about need a dictionary! Yea… I noticed that both good and bad points were listed in the reviews. One I read gave away the ending saying that Schindler saves 1100 Jews which was kind of dumb. So I won’t be doing that. The actors were listed and the reviewer commented on how well they suited their parts. This was good because it gave readers and idea of who the characters are and what they look like. It helps shape the story without giving away any plot. The film was compared with other Steven Speilberg movies and other WW2 ones. But comparing it with Jaws was a bit stupid I have to agree with Bron on that. Some people might not even like Jaws. One reviewer compared the film with the book. This would be good if the reader had read the book but it is a film review not a book review. So I’m not sure about that.
Three features:
Entices an emotional reaction from the audience: “its best tribute is the shocked, tearful silence of audiences everywhere.”
Summarizes plot and characters, but focuses on Spielburg’s success, and using his credibility to propel the review, and convince the reader to see the film.
Talks about the characters as though they are ingredients, that create Spielburg’s vision.
Well, the review I looked at bored me to sleep (http://au.rottentomatoes.com/m/schindlers_list/articles/1669576/)
manly because i couldn’t read half of it. It included random letters in almost every sentence. The author is not describing the film, he is discussion a discussion he had with his friend, (“I was talking to a friend of mine about”) the author has also attacked a thesaurus until it begs him for mercy (“I was more impressed by Spielberg’s gift for emotional manipulation he showing us the horrors while holding our hands”)
and (“To attack it for being a middlebrow moral lesson would be hypocritical the movies are the backbone of middlebrow culture”), how could any real and sane person get through that without throwing the monitor against the wall and swearing to kill this idiotic author. Also the author tries to build a picture of this film for a dreadful 1,102 words until completely breaking down the film by saying that they could have used chocolate syrup for blood. I hate you, Philip Martin (Author), i really do.
Was short and to the point, the type of thing you stick on the cover. Adjectives, making us think “WOW! It must be good.” Decided not to use example. Interesting choice, I thought. Doesn’t give away ending either. Spoilers really suck.
english@cc 
Three features:
-compares the film to others with similar material.
-notes things that worked and things that don’t.
-gives brief plot without giving away whole story.
I Read The Review By Emanuel Levy
Three Features:
– Weak and Strong Pieces In The Film Are Mentioned.
– A Detailed Plot Summary (Which Doesn’t Give The Story Away)
– Notes Key Quotes In The Film.
I read the reveiw by Geoff Andrew from Time Out.
Three features of this reveiw are:
1. Names the actors and what their characters are like.
2. Doesn’t give away the plot and ending.
3. Gives facts on what happened to the Jews in the movie and in real life.
Three features I noticed in the first review are, That they didnt give the story away but they gave away just enough that you would want to see the film. It notes how Schindlers List is different to other films Steven Spielberg has directed like Jaws. At the end of the review there is a star rating which giveS you a ood idea of how good the film is.
The Review Also Mentions The History Of The Director And States Their Previous Work For Comparison, It Also States How Well The Actor Preformed And Suited The Role.
This Review Also Notes The Seriousness Of The Content And How This Film Is Unique To Other Hollywood Films On The Holocaust.
Three Features.
Three features that i noticed in the review were that he described and explained the main characters and hat their roles were in the film and comparing them to the real life NAZIs that were there. Also a detailed plot summary was told, although it did tell a bit too much detail about the use of colour especially about the little girl who wears the red coat in the movie. They also have there own personal opinion to the movie which is different from others as he states the good and bad points of the movie.
I read the review by Rita Kempley from the Washington Post
Three features:
– I thought she gave away a tiny bit too much when reviewing the film.
– Notes the epiphany in the movie, girl in scarlet coat
– Gives detailed thoughts on the characters and their personalities
Three features that were noticed by me were that they didn’t give the plot away at all and it gives you just enough information to know what it is about but makes you want to see more. Another feature is the reference to the director Steven Speilberg and his background. This shows the style of the movie and relations to his other movies. Another feature is the reaction to the movie by viewers and it gives you an idea of what the public thinks.
Whoops, i meant that they don’t give away too much of the film! It gives enough to picture it in your mind, but not enough that it gives it away
Three features:
– He explained the scene where the jewish hinge-maker was meant to be shot but the gun kept misfiring and explained way to much of the story. He gave the plot away. If somebody hadn’t seen the film they would know what happens in all the key points after reading this review.
– He compared Schindler’s list to other films that Steven Spielberg made which was kind of irrelevant because it was more like reviewing the work that the director had done rather than reviewing the actual film.
– He links the conclusion in with the review and makes a very strong closing point.
I read the review by Todd McCarthy.I noticed lots of writing features including that they give you lots of hints about the story line, enough to get you interested but not enough to give away the ending. Another feature they use is high end vocabulary such as “but Spielberg makes this both memorable and somehow bearable by staging it all with abrupt, shocking suddenness, which adds to the feeling of arbitrariness.” Which doesnt make much sense if you read it quickly. Another feature is that they list things a lot e.g.”easily elicit automatic reactions of moral outrage, personal horror, religious self-righteousness and dramatic extremes, not to mention severe depression.”
Channel 4 review.
– ‘Twas really short but good as they didn’t give anything about the plot away. Just a brief sentence or two saying what the film is about. Makes you want to see it.
-Use lots of adjectives and good language.
-Named director and actors and characters. Compared ‘Schindlers List’ to ‘Jurassic park’ and said it was better.
Review of the Schindlers List review by Emanuel Levy
Emanuel gives a brief plot summary and in my opinion gives away too much of the story although he does say things that I hadn’t noticed. e.g that the Enamelware factory was originally owned by Jews.
Emanuel compares the film with others that have similar content or are of the same genre to indicate to readers what the film is about.
Emanuel comments on parts of the film that he thinks that worked and parts that he thought were unnecessary but can understand why they were included (in the film)
Lulu, you say that your film review uses “good language” – what do you mean? Give some specific examples.
I wrote a SUPER good one in class but the computer committed suicide. Because im traumatised i cannot be expected to write such a good one the second time round.
Time Out review:
The actors and their suitability are discussed, as are their performance, so that we get an idea of who plays who. This could possible create interest in the possible if you recognise an actor that you enjoy watching.
The reviewer says that it “Is Spielbergs finest since Jaws” which I think is completely wrong and gives people the total opposite idea of what he is trying to communicate in this film when compared with Jaws.
Also talked about is the camera work and editing, how it is in black and white and the way in which this works to the advantage of the film.
* Possibly create interest in the film
Bron – I’m sorry that you are traumatised! You have given examples from the film but how would you describe the techniques used by the reviewer?
The words were really big. Talk about need a dictionary! Yea… I noticed that both good and bad points were listed in the reviews. One I read gave away the ending saying that Schindler saves 1100 Jews which was kind of dumb. So I won’t be doing that. The actors were listed and the reviewer commented on how well they suited their parts. This was good because it gave readers and idea of who the characters are and what they look like. It helps shape the story without giving away any plot. The film was compared with other Steven Speilberg movies and other WW2 ones. But comparing it with Jaws was a bit stupid I have to agree with Bron on that. Some people might not even like Jaws. One reviewer compared the film with the book. This would be good if the reader had read the book but it is a film review not a book review. So I’m not sure about that.
Three features:
Entices an emotional reaction from the audience: “its best tribute is the shocked, tearful silence of audiences everywhere.”
Summarizes plot and characters, but focuses on Spielburg’s success, and using his credibility to propel the review, and convince the reader to see the film.
Talks about the characters as though they are ingredients, that create Spielburg’s vision.
Well, the review I looked at bored me to sleep (http://au.rottentomatoes.com/m/schindlers_list/articles/1669576/)
manly because i couldn’t read half of it. It included random letters in almost every sentence. The author is not describing the film, he is discussion a discussion he had with his friend, (“I was talking to a friend of mine about”) the author has also attacked a thesaurus until it begs him for mercy (“I was more impressed by Spielberg’s gift for emotional manipulation he showing us the horrors while holding our hands”)
and (“To attack it for being a middlebrow moral lesson would be hypocritical the movies are the backbone of middlebrow culture”), how could any real and sane person get through that without throwing the monitor against the wall and swearing to kill this idiotic author. Also the author tries to build a picture of this film for a dreadful 1,102 words until completely breaking down the film by saying that they could have used chocolate syrup for blood. I hate you, Philip Martin (Author), i really do.
Perfect answer for those who need help:
Was short and to the point, the type of thing you stick on the cover. Adjectives, making us think “WOW! It must be good.” Decided not to use example. Interesting choice, I thought. Doesn’t give away ending either. Spoilers really suck.